 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:48bc0a2a$1@news.povray.org...
> Gail wrote:
>
>> No one ever suggested that MS's marketing dept was 'honest'. I've heard a
>> couple of MS developers complaining about the massaged facts the
>> marketing dept was pushing.
>
> One might argue that if MS were to be "honest" about their products,
> they'd never sell any because they all suck so much...
Not all of them.
You're generalising to a hell of a lot of stuff that you've probably never
used based on your experiences with a couple.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
>
> No, it's not.
> In my experience though, the majority of DB servers that have
> bottlenecks have IO ones, even on physical machines. Virtualising those
> means needing separate IO paths, separate physical raid arrays, etc or
> the virtuals will compeate with one another for IO.
Yep, but think about a small firm, just started. They want reliable
hardware, they need 2 servers, one for databases and one for something
else that's not so IO-sensitive (authenticating etc). Now, would they
get better performance for the DB's by buying 2 individual servers or by
using all that money on one server, from which they could utilize most
of the IO from the DB-engine?
I'd probably go with the latter one. Probably, not surely.
> I know that all the
> SQL MVPs who have given an opinion on this have recommend not
> virtualising a production DB, especially not a large one with lots of
> activity.
> I'd happily virtualise a dev or test environment. Not happy about doing
> it to a heavily-utilised prod server though. Not right now.
Yep, there's a huge scale on the db-sized used over the globe. Even if
you'll count out the 2-5 -table one-query-per-day -style ones I
mentioned earlier.
> Well, VMWare's joined the SVVP
> (http://www.windowsservercatalog.com/svvp.aspx?svvppage=svvp.htm), so
> there'll have to be some level of support. How much remains to be seen.
Ahh, nice.
> SQL's not supported at all on existing MS virtualisation products
> (virtual server, virtual PC)
As said, AFAIK those are the ones that run over the main OS, they really
can't pass any unemulated/virtualized command straightly to the hardware.
> and it's not currently supported on Hyper-V
> (which has been available for a month or so)
Hyper-V is still pretty new and at least I wouldn't be sure if they have
actually had the time to test it enough. I'd guess the support on
Hyper-V would get better after some time.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
>
> No one ever suggested that MS's marketing dept was 'honest'. I've heard
> a couple of MS developers complaining about the massaged facts the
> marketing dept was pushing.
Yep.
I haven't used Hyper-V, so I won't say anything about it's quality. It
might suck, it might be superior, or anything from between. I won't even
say sure that it's compareable with Xen or ESXi.
It just annoys me while MS continously gets innovations of "new, unseen
technology" which I'm (or someone else if I know for sure) already using
and is just unknown for most of the people. Marketing ranting :).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Eero Ahonen" <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote in message
news:48bc1d26$1@news.povray.org...
>
> I'd probably go with the latter one. Probably, not surely.
Very likely. Though, as always, test carefully.
> Hyper-V is still pretty new and at least I wouldn't be sure if they have
> actually had the time to test it enough. I'd guess the support on Hyper-V
> would get better after some time.
I hope so. There's enough companies fully aboard the vitualisation train
already, many without checking to see if there's coal, if the wheels are
about to fall off or if it's going in the direction they want. <grin>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gail wrote:
>
> Very likely. Though, as always, test carefully.
>
Yep.
> I hope so. There's enough companies fully aboard the vitualisation train
> already, many without checking to see if there's coal, if the wheels
> are about to fall off or if it's going in the direction they want. <grin>
As you said: test carefully ;). MS is a big player after all, so before
they give theier support (which practically means they promise it'll
work) for such a thing, they'll need to be pretty sure of it. The surer
they are, the happier will customers be and the better they'll sell.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> I'd probably go with the latter one. Probably, not surely.
>
> Very likely. Though, as always, test carefully.
Wait a sec - small firm, just started up, *testing*???
From what I've seen most *large* companies don't bother to test
anything, never mind small startups. ;-)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> One might argue that if MS were to be "honest" about their products,
>> they'd never sell any because they all suck so much...
>
> Not all of them.
> You're generalising to a hell of a lot of stuff that you've probably
> never used based on your experiences with a couple.
Perhaps. But you might argue it's fitting for their most popular
products (which, presumably, are where they make most of their money).
It wasn't intented to be a serious statement. MS's reputation is the
stuff of legend - I'm sure we've all been there and done that.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> So when you say "works on any reasonably modern PC", what you *actually*
> mean is "works on any brand new bleeding-edge PC"?
No. I believe it was the 386 that added the capability.
You know, two generations back before the Pentium came out?
Added primarily to emulate multiple "DOS boxes" under Windows.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> similar as in Xen
As far as I understand it, an OS running under Xen has to know it's
running under Xen, doesn't it? It's actually quite a large leap from
"we can run multiple OSes" to "we can run multiple OSes that don't have
to cooperate with the hypervisor".
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> But surely if you're going to run a guest OS on the physical host CPU,
> the host CPU would need to have hardware support for enforcing the host
> seperation?
Nope. You don't *need* it. You can, for example, get a chunk of code the
guest is trying to execute, translate the little parts that need changing
to provide security and enforcing host separation, then run it. (I don't
even know assembler, so actually I have no idea what I'm talking about)
VMware Inc has dozens of patents on different tricks to do that efficiently.
And yes, there are *also* CPUs (64-bit Intel and AMD CPUs you can buy at any
shop) that include built-in support for virtualization. That just gives you
more performance; doesn't really let you do anything you couldn't do
before...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
